I just read an interesting paragraph about churches from "What's Theology Got To Do With It?"
Nevertheless, perhaps because we have grown so accustomed to thinking of ourselves as consumers of various goods and services, the membership ethos is hard to break. I have noticed, for example, that in many congregations, when a new group gathers for the first time, the default option for introductions tends to take the form, "My name is ______, and I have been a member of First Church for 30 years (or 15 years or 1 year)." As a way of introducing ourselves, length of tenure at that particular church, to be sure provides some useful information. And there is much to be said for loyalty and commitment. But something else often seems to be going on during such a ritual. A pecking order is established based on length of membership. An insider-outsider dynamic is suggested. indeed as Michael Foss (Lutheran pastor) notes, "The membership model identifies who is in and who is out. No wonder those outside the church consistently say that church people are more judgmental than others.What struck me as so fascinating is how such a simple thing like length of time in a group can immediately establish a "pecking order." This happens in all sorts of organizations and communities, but I believe the author is making a point that, in the Christian community, this is particularly damaging.
The holidays are coming up, which has a host of examples.
For instance:
A church has had a choir cantata every Sunday prior to Christmas. When it first started, it was something that people made a point to see and hear - not because it was an outreach, but because the choir was very good and people felt truly blessed for having attended. (I have a similar annual experience at a Messiah Sing in Kalamazoo.) Over the years, though, the cantata began to be viewed as a "must" because it did draw in people and that became a platform for a "short evangelical message" or opportunity to pitch a special offering for an undoubtedly worthwhile need.
Move forward 20 years. The choir is much older and smaller than when it was in its heyday. People who've attended the special service are pretty much the same ones who've done so for several years. Enter a new person with a radical idea: "Instead of the choir cantata, what if we have a Christmas Carol Society Social? We could set up a piano or keyboard in the fellowship hall and gather around it to sing Christmas hymns and favorite songs. Our few teens might even bring guitars and drums. Tables could be set up with snacks. Kids could bring a toy to play with and one that would be donated to a needy family. Adults could bring food for the same."
"Well ... that's a great idea," the old guard says, "but the cantata has been part of this church for 20 years."
Bang. New idea by a new person nailed into an old coffin.
"Okay, well, what if we move the Christmas tree from the front of the church to the back? Our worship team has a lot more equipment than it has in recent years. That would give us more room."
"We've tried moving the tree before, but the front is the best place. Everyone can see it there.
Bang. Another new idea by a new person nailed into an old coffin.
Sunday before Christmas arrives.
"Gee, I wonder where that new family is this evening? What was there name again?"
"I don't know. I can't even keep up with my grandkid's names. But isn't the tree beautiful and the choir great?"
How much does length of membership influence your church's decisions?
True 
Premium
Comments (7)
People with good, new ideas will almost always be rebuffed by the "Old Guard." That isn't a religious thing, it is a human thing.
So the innovators have to work hard to establish their new ideas. Almost always this is done by going around the Old Guard.If a person with a new idea just sits in meetings run by the Old Guard and allows them to nail all the coffins shut, the new idea will never see the light of day.
So the idea people must also be innovative in their approach to establishing their good ideas.
It should be this way, frankly. People should have to fight to get new ideas in. It adds to continuity rather than causing everything to be disjointed. It's not always an either/or for that matter either.
Another thing people forget is that the elderly need the familiarity. They don't change and adapt well. The little things they've been doing for the last several decades comfort them a lot. Why take that away arbitrarily? That's part of the reason people should fight. In general, I find that we think of "new" in this culture with overwhelmingly positive tones and "old" with bad ones. We are very youth oriented, and we don't really give a rat's *** about the elderly. Perhaps we should have more pause before we go off guns a-blazing for the horizon.
I could always write a similar story about the church that grows its members by adopting the new and latest things, but whose elderly eventually stop coming and stay at home and lonely, because they have nothing they can relate to. They get up in the morning, and they're in pain. They feel exhausted in the morning, and it doesn't get better. They work through the day, and the pain doesn't go away. They kept that church going for several decades. In fact the older crowds typically support their churches more than the younger.
In the example, then, would it be better if they started changing everything, and the older members stopped coming and stayed at home alone, feeling abandoned? If the church grew, if its membership skyrocketed, would it justify the price? We should really stop worshiping the cult of novelty.
This is not a one-sided issue.
Sadly, in Korea (due to Confucianism), hierarchy is very common.....I don't think this should be. Yes, there needs to be authority, but we don't need to honor one member of the body more than another because of where God has placed them.
There is, and is supposed to be, a hierarchy in the Church. Those who have been spiritually matured should be given a bit more weight in leadership; but because they're spiritually mature they will be bringing up the others under them so that they can replace them someday.
All the arguments you've mentioned are, however, unnecessary and ridiculous. People fighting over such trivial things as a Choir and a Christmas tree... it would be better, and indeed it should be, that those things be ejected from the Church completely.
I feel a bit of a moan but i think that much of the hierarchical approach to church is negative. "You can't have communion unless a particular person is present, you can have some one in to deliver your Word unless they have a license. You have to have a certain sized house and visit the people who tithe the most (not that we should even know who that is) These and other things like them are what is rotten in our communities of faith. They are things born of man and ritual and don't stand up under close scrutiny with stretching some ambiguous biblical point.
Now that said neither do i believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water. My point is that at the moment the institutional church is so hierarchical that it often stifles any other form of expression of church. It fails to validiate those who choose to do things differently (Ironic in the protestant tradition given it's roots).
I have been to churches where they sang psalms and canticles (still not sure what they are) and everyone knew which page of which book to pick up (except for me), and I genuinely wish those folk well as 'canicus' says they have supported their church for decades, they need the familiarity and the routine to feel at home. That is fine. I think that the Christian life should be more than that but if that is what floats there boat then 'go to it'. But please don't ask why i don't go to a 'proper' church because i don't embrace them.
Grace and Peace.
I think I see where you are coming from. In your cited example, you're not saying that the new persons are offering a radical change or even a spurious one (ie: the Praise Team needs more room). You even show that the newbie has thought the idea through, and presented several ways to include many of the age groups within the church.
Rather than giving the new ideas some real thought on "what's the harm in moving the tree?" Or even considering "Can we blend the festival idea with a smaller cantata performance?" they were carefully dismissed without concern. I don't think that either of these two suggestions would offend the elderly who are able to actively engage with a church group to begin with (and I'm 55, so I am pretty in touch with what my parents would enjoy or struggle with).
The real challenge is when someone new might make a suggestion for something and then not want to pour in the effort to make it happen. The "old guard" has work, family and other social commitments to juggle outside of their church involvement, and they may resent someone else threatening their comfortable time management plans. If you can come with enough enthusiasm and some others who are willing to put some work into the idea, I think it certainly would get some happy willingness in MY church - once you show that you are committed to regular church attendance (few people on the church staff or elder board know what you contribute), and that you have supported other efforts with some measure of congeniality, there should be no problem in getting some support for a well thought out and staffed idea.
justme
cm
@canicus@xanga - I see your point, and it's a good one, but that does cut both ways. Everything shouldn't be unseated just for the sake of novelty. However, new ideas and ministries should be able to be adopted without the prospective leaders feeling like they've been clobbered into submission by the "Old Guard".
Case in point: a friend has absolutely refused to have any dealings with her church's womens' ministry. The reason? A small group of older members want to keep it as a group that exists solely for luncheons and other social occasions. That same small group has made it hard to for it to expand into a full-fledged welcoming/hospitality ministry. All members need to be treated as people of worth for things to succeed.